Hi
folks. I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on September
21, 2010. I always get the big annoying part over rather than hit you all
the way through the show, for donations or buying the books and so on. I
get it off the plate first right to you. I advise you to go into cuttingthroughthematrix.com
web site. There are hundreds of audios for download for free; help yourself to
them. I try and give you the shortcuts to the big picture of
understanding the world. If you were to take your whole lifetime trying
to find out what’s going on, you would need quite a few thousand lifetimes in
fact because one is not enough. All we can do is pick up the clues that
are left out there by the big boys themselves when they have been rather untidy
in days gone by. So go into the web site and help yourself to the
audios. You’ll see the books I’ve got for sale and the disks and so
on. That’s what keeps me ticking over. It’s up to you to purchase
them. They are different from the usual history books that give you names
and dates and battles and generals and that kind of stuff. I go into the
ancient system up to the present and show you the conology, as I call it.
CONology… of the techniques that are used upon all societies from the earliest
civilizations. Civilization, really, is a very interesting term, from
city. Once you are crammed into a city you must live in an artificial
system and those who own the city and rule the money – there is always a money
system for a city because you can’t grow anything or raise cattle and so on in
a city, therefore you become sort of shark-like and you are too busy scrounging
for cash to pay your taxes and buy your meager substance to worry about what’s
happening. And it hasn’t really changed up until this day. So
purchase the books. [Order and donation options listed above.] I
don’t really push Western Union because they are quite hefty for a fee to
transfer a wire; it’s so easy to do and they charge so much. Money Gram
is a bit cheaper. You can send cash as well from other countries; they
are still cashing it over here, so far. So that’s that over with.
But you’ve got to help me out as I say, and donations themselves are really
appreciated. Believe you me, it’s more the donations here and there that
add up, and help me to pay the bills, for the satellite uploads and all the
rest of the stuff that I have to pay for here, just for this one hour
show. And this is not a business. It’s not a business. If it
was, if I needed the cash for a business I’d be off doing something where I’d
make money and I do have certain opportunities to do that. The alternative
is to bring on guests who are really are there to sell something, and you
listen to an hour of advertising and that really isn’t quite right either in my
book. Why listen to an hour’s advertising, get scared, and then get
offered the solution? That’s the standard technique of advertising. The
ads you hear on this show are paid by advertisers to RBN to broadcast the
show. It pays for their air time, their staff, equipment and their bills
and it’s got nothing to do with me. So this gives me a freer hand to say
the different things I want to say, or if I’m asked a question I can answer it
more truthfully and I’m not compromised. I'll be back with more after
this break.

Hi
folks. I'm back and we're Cutting Through The Matrix. It’s amazing
you know, how old the idea of money is. Before it was even coined around
800 BC or so they weighed it and they had different techniques. Some of
it was just the gold dust. Some of it was very basic as ore even in
ancient times. Sometimes it was made as a bracelet that wound around your
arm, around and around and around it and you’d cut off little pieces of it and
weigh them as you paid your way along the trade routes and paid off the gangs
that would stalk you along the way. Wherever there is money there is
always corruption; it goes hand-in-hand with it. Along with money you
need commerce. The two, again, go hand-in-hand. If you look at
primitive societies as they are called – and I think it’s an unwarranted term –
they are generally completely truly self-sustainable. These so-called
primitive societies don’t really go in for commerce much. They make their
own tools. They make everything that they need. They are completely
independent of the system. That is why the big boys hate them so much and call
them primitive. They are not under this slavery system that we are all
under here.

We
are born into it as I say. Many, many generations have been born into the
same corrupt system and it simply gets more and more corrupt. But it
isn’t really just corruption sort of willy-nilly and guys helping themselves to
the big pot. It’s also a directed corruption because it’s the New World
Order as they call it, a total control of every single individual across the
entire planet done under the guise of helping people. Whenever
these guys come and say they want to help the third world, the third world
should really arm themselves to the teeth because they are going to take away
every bit of ability you have to be independent and live and survive during the
good times or bad times, especially the bad times. You’ll be completely
dependent on them for everything that you need for food and even the water
because water will be owned by the UN eventually. It will be the sort of
arbiter for the private corporations which will own the entire world’s water
supply. And I’m not kidding about that; it’s all been talked about at the
top.

It
all runs on money. Money is the key. Money… we don’t work for our
food and we don’t work for things we really need so much. We work for
money to buy the food, to pay the rent, to pay all the taxes and so on and so
on and so on. That’s the real system we live under. There is more
corporate welfare out there than there is general welfare. Folk forget we
just bailed out the banks not long ago there for trillions of dollars and
trillions of pounds, still ongoing. These are cash gifts from you to
them, again, brokered by your government that works for the big bankers.
And there is no doubt about that. They all work together, the top CEOs.
If you look at most of the top politicians, they have all been CEOs of big
corporations. They go in and out of these seats as they call them, and into
politics for a few years and then back in again and get handsomely paid for all
the laws they introduced to help their big businesses when they were in
politics. Standard story.

Here
is a politician in Britain who has come forward with the right kind of
thing. I don’t know how far it will get, probably get shot down as they
say, when a bill is introduced. However, it says…

Douglas Carswell (Alan: who is a
member of parliament in Britain.) MP
Introduces Bill to Stop Fractional Reserve Banking

(A: It’s a
well written article. I guess the guy really wrote his speech up to
present it in the House of Commons and then it goes to the House of
Lords. The Commons is for the commoners, and once you have really screwed
the public you get put up to the House of Lords. Anyway…)

“Mr Douglas Carswell
(Clacton) (Con): I beg to move, (A: He put in what they call a
‘move.’ A movement isn’t going to the toilet there, sometimes it is, but
it’s actually to put forward a bill, so they call it a move.)

“That leave be given
to bring in a Bill to prohibit banks and building societies lending on the
basis of demand deposits without the permission of the account holder; and for
connected purposes.

[Demand deposits are
bank account deposits that can be withdrawn on demand - you don't need to give
any notice before demanding your money back, for example.]

“Who owns the money
in your bank account? That small question has profound implications. According
to a survey by Ipsos MORI, more than 70% of people in the UK believe that when
they deposit money with the bank, it is theirs—but it is not. Money deposited
in a bank account is, as established under case law going back more than
200 years, (A: That’s when the Rothschilds took over.) legally the
property of the bank, rather than the account holder. Were any hon. Members (A:
Honorable Member, that’s what they call politicians there. I don’t know
where the ‘honorable’ part comes in.) to deposit £100 at their bank this
afternoon or, rather improbably, if the Independent Parliamentary Standards
Authority was to manage to do so on any Member’s behalf, the bank would then be
free to lend on approximately £97 of it. (A: ...out. As soon as
you put 100 in, they lend 97 out, even though that should still be kept for the
guy that deposited it, right.) Even under the new capital ratio
requirements, the bank could lend on more than 90% of what one deposited.
Indeed, bank A could then lend on £97 of the initial £100 deposit to another
bank—bank B—which could then lend on 97% of the value. The lending would go
round and round until, as we saw at the height of the credit boom, for every £1
deposited banks would have piled up more than £40-worth of accumulated credit
of one form or another.

“Banks enjoy a form
of legal privilege extended to no other area of business that I am aware of—it
is a form of legal privilege. I am sure that some hon. Members, in full
compliance with IPSA rules, may have rented a flat (A: That’s an
apartment.), and they do not need me, or indeed IPSA, to explain that
having done so they are, in general, not allowed to sub-let it to someone else.
(A: That’s the rules; that’s the law.) Anyone who tried to
do that would find that their landlord would most likely eject them. So why are
banks allowed to sub-let people’s money many times over without their
consent? (A: And they give you nothing back right.)

“My Bill would give
account holders legal ownership of their deposits, unless they indicated
otherwise when opening the account. In other words, there would henceforth be
two categories of bank account: deposit-taking accounts for investment
purposes, and deposit-taking accounts for storage purposes.

[This is the system
recommended by proposals such as Irving Fisher's 100% Money solution and the
modern full reserve banking proposal available (A: They give you a
link to go and read all of that.) at www.BankofEnglandAct.co.uk]

“Banks would remain
at liberty to lend on money deposited in the investment accounts, (A:
That’s when you go into a bank and they ask you if you want to open an investment
account; that gives them permission to go out and invest that cash, of
yours. You get a little dribble back, not much, but they invest it and
they get a lot back.) but not on money deposited in the storage accounts. (A:
That’s like a savings account.) As such, the idea is not a million
miles away from the idea of 100% gilt-backed storage accounts proposed by other
hon. Members and the Governor of the Bank of England.

“My Bill is not just
a consumer-protection measure; it also aims to remove a curious legal exemption
for banks that has profound implications on the whole economy. (A:
This is the same, by the way, in every country, the same system.) Precisely
because they are able to treat one’s deposit as an investment in a giant credit
pyramid, banks are able to conjure up credit. In most industries, when demand
rises businesses produce more in response. The legal privilege extended to
banks prevents that basic market mechanism from working, with disastrous
consequences.

“As I shall explain,
if the market mechanism worked as it should, once demand for credit started to
increase in an economy, banks would raise the price of credit—interest rates—in
order to encourage more savings. More folk would save as a result, as rates
rose. That would allow banks to extend credit in proportion to savings. Were
banks like any other business, they would find that when demand for what they
supply lets rip, they would be constrained in their ability to supply credit by
the pricing mechanism. (A: In other words, they wouldn’t keep
doing it and creating money out of nothing, and then end up in a bubble that
pops.) That is, alas, not the case with our system of fractional
reserve banking. (A: Fractional reserve just means they only
have to give you a tiny percentage of what you deposit. They lend the
rest out.) Able to treat people’s money as their own, banks can carry
on lending against it, without necessarily raising the price of credit. The
pricing mechanism does not rein in the growth in credit as it should. Unrestrained
by the pricing mechanism, we therefore get credit bubbles. To satisfy runaway
demand for credit, banks produce great candy-floss piles of the stuff. The
sugar rush feels great for a while, but that sugar-rush credit creates an
expansion in capacity in the economy that is not backed by real savings. It is
not justified in terms of someone else’s deferred consumption, so the credit
boom creates unsustainable over-consumption.

“Policy makers, not
least in this Chamber, regardless of who has been in office, have had to face
the unenviable choice between letting the edifice of crony capitalism come
crashing down, with calamitous consequences for the rest of us, or printing
more real money to shore up this Ponzi scheme—and the people who built it—and
in doing so devalue our currency to keep the pyramid afloat. (A:
Which is what every country has done since the crash.)

“Since the credit
crunch hit us, an endless succession of economists, most of whom did not see it
coming, have popped up on our TV screens to explain its causes with great
authority. Most have tended to see the lack of credit as the problem, rather
than as a symptom. Perhaps we should instead begin to listen to those
economists who saw the credit glut that preceded the crash as the problem. The
Cobden Centre, the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Huerta de Soto all grasped
that the overproduction of bogus candy-floss credit before the crunch gave rise
to it. It is time to take seriously their ideas on honest money and sound
banking.

(A: Then he
goes on to the big communist one, the Keynesian-monetarist economists.
Keynes was all about that. Keynes worked for the big boys. In true
socialism, true socialism is Nazi-ish, you see. They don’t believe in the
people having rights. They believe that the elite should run the world; that’s
why they’re in with the bankers. And Keynes basically had not a good word
for the ordinary working people.)

“The
Keynesian-monetarist economists might recoil in horror at the idea, because
their orthodoxy holds that without these legal privileges for banks, there
would be insufficient credit. They say that the oil that keeps the engine of
capitalism working would dry up and the machine would grind to a halt, but that
is not so. Under my Bill, credit would still exist but it would be credit
backed by savings. (A: …by real savings.) In other words, it
would be credit that could fuel an expansion in economic capacity that was
commensurate with savings or deferred consumption. It would be, to use the
cliché of our day, sustainable.

So
he goes on and on and on and explains and explains and explains it.
However it’s quite simple. Whenever you put your cash in the bank they
immediately loan most of it out and keep a few pennies in reserve. That’s
what they had been doing with the last crunch too. They were lending to other
banks, that money you just put in, and then they’d lend that out too, the
90-odd percent of it, and they had nothing to back anything with when the
bubble came down. So we end up paying it all, but that’s what we’re here
for. We’re slaves you see, under this economic system. So this has
had its second reading in Parliament. I don’t know what will happen,
probably nothing, but at least it shows you that some of them know. It’s
been getting a voice. It’s been legalized. It’s been
noticed you might say, that some people know what’s going on. Which is
rather unique for parliament isn’t it?

Another
con that’s going on too, is the big move, by the big boys and their pyramid –
they have a capstone of their pyramid that guides the world, through IBM and
all the big think tanks and so on, and the foundations. We’ve heard of
all their con games. Remember they came up with the idea of using the
climate, catastrophes and the climate, at the Club of Rome, in order to control
the world and get us to cut consumption and get into these sustainable areas,
which really means prison camps, that we wouldn’t be able to move out of.
You see, in any totalitarian system that has existed in the past, you can’t
have free access of movement. You must be contained in an area… and that
is coming. That is coming. Step by step, under Homeland Security,
and the same Homeland Security is in every country under different names.
They are pushing the same things because they have all signed the same treaties
with the United Nations, Agenda 21, The Millennium Project, and many
other names for the same thing. So they have scared us with all this
nonsense, and it’s always bogus claims that they make. I’ve read the
bogus claims too from the guys who make them, saying that they have to put out scary scenarios or no one
will listen to them. So they lie. It says here…

UN climate change claims on rainforests were wrong,
study suggests

The
United Nations' climate change panel is facing fresh criticism after new
research contradicted the organisation's claims about the devastating effect
climate change could have on the Amazon rainforest. (A: I love
all these ‘coulds’ and stuff. You could say Mars will crash into
Earth. Yeah, it ‘could’ happen you know...)

A new study, funded
by NASA, (A: That’s your tax money of course.) has found
that the most serious drought in the Amazon for more than a century had little
impact on the rainforest's vegetation.

The findings appear
to disprove claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that
up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could react drastically to even a small
reduction in rainfall and could see the trees replaced by tropical
grassland. (A: That was the big scary part.)

The IPCC has already
faced intense criticism for using a report by environmental lobby group WWF (A:
The World Wildlife Fund, that’s the Queen’s hubby and all these characters.) as
the basis for its claim, which in turn had failed to cite the original source
of the research. (A: They never do of course. They even
get students to write stuff.)

Scientists have now
spoken out against the 40% figure contained in the IPCC report and say that
recent research is suggesting that the rainforest may be more resilient to
climate change than had been previously thought.

It comes just two
days after the UN announced an independent review into the panel's procedures following
a series of scandals over its most recent (A: lies… oh sorry,
reports…) report which was found to contain factual errors and claims which
were not based on rigorous scientific research. (A: No
kidding. What was it they said, we’ve
got to put out scary scenarios or the public won’t believe us.
[Alan laughing.])

The InterAcademy
Council, which is the umbrella organisation for the national academies of
science around the world, will examine how the IPCC's reports are compiled and
communicated.

Dr Jose Marengo, a
climate scientist with the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research and
a member of the IPCC, said the latest study on the Amazon's response to drought
highlighted the variations on the previous claims.

So
there you go. It’s on and on. Remember what the final intent is,
that you can own nothing on this world. It will all be in
‘stewardship.’ It will be under the stewardship of the big boys and the
big corporations themselves. Remember too, the United Nations is a corporation;
that’s how it’s registered by the way. So it’s all a con to get us into
the sustainable development, austerity programs, as you toss your money across
the world – that’s the redistribution of wealth – to make sure that they can
eat and all the rest of it. An example of that, for instance, the United
States has no idea how much money they are shelling out, the same with Britain
and all the countries that got hit with the crash, the planned crash – and it
was planned by the way. They are throwing out money under the new
prosperity schemes for the rest of the planet. That’s of course right
from the Communist Manifesto. It says here…

Clinton to unveil US funds for clean cookstove push

21 Sep 2010 / Source: Reuters / alternet.org / By Jeff
Mason

(A: This is
only one of many programs that you are paying for right now across the
world. I read articles two or three weeks ago where the US is paying for
tuition for teachers in schools in China, as they rake in trillions of bucks,
because they are the only producers in the world now, and India and elsewhere
across the globe. And healthcare too by the way, for China.
Yeah. You are paying for that as they cut yours back here.)

NEW YORK, Sept 21
(Reuters) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will announce on Tuesday a U.S.
contribution of more than $50 million toward providing clean cooking stoves in
developing countries to reduce deaths from smoke inhalation and fight climate
change. (A: Oh, they always tack that on, eh. They are
going to fight climate change.)

The U.S. funding,
which will be spread over five years, is part of a Global Alliance for Clean
Cookstoves (A: They’ve got a thousand projects on the go, all with
your tax money, for across the world but not for home.) being started to
combat a problem officials equate with malaria and unclean water in terms of
their health impact worldwide.

Some 1.9 million
premature deaths, (A: They go through the usual rubbish and pulling
numbers out of the air and all the rest of it. We’ll be gone.) …

Smoke from such
cooking methods can lead to childhood pneumonia, lung cancer, bronchitis and
cardiovascular disease while contributing to climate change through emissions
of carbon dioxide and methane -- two major greenhouse gases -- and black
carbon. (A: Ooohhh, black carbon, ooohhh. You ever watch
the forestry commissions; you know, their departments of forestry doing a
controlled burn? They did it in British Columbia a few years ago in
conjunction with Washington State. The two were to meet somewhere and
this fire got out of hand and burned I think for 3 years. Millions of
acres I think were just burned to the ground. There was BLACK CARBON
everywhere… and that smoke was up in the air and no one said anything about
this pollution that they caused. You see, when government does it, it’s
HOLY smoke, you understand. It’s HOLY smoke, but when you do it, oooohh,
that’s nasty smoke, it’s bad, it’s EVIL smoke… and you are going to pay for
that. You see?)

The new alliance to
combat the issue groups U.S. government agencies with the United Nations
Foundation, Germany, Peru, Norway, the World Health Organization and corporate
backers including Morgan Stanley and Shell, among others. (A:
Who no doubt will also be the guys who own the shares to the companies that are
making all the stoves.)

"This is
something that touches on climate, on health, on women's empowerment, (A:
Oh, let’s use Hillary; she gets off with that all the time. The only time
she picked anything off a cook stove was to throw at Bill. Anyway it says here…) on deforestation
and on poverty," (A: Ohh God, that’s enough of that guff
anyway. I call this stuff guff because it really gets to you, all this PC
prattle that comes out of think tanks. You know, these little phrases
that are put out there by the marketers for them to spew out to us.)

As
all that is happening and we are paying for the third world to have these
wonderful cook stoves, of course you are going to get your electricity cut back
at home, and your gas supplies, you are going to pay through the roof and all
the rest of it. There are people in Canada terrified of this year coming
because the oil prices go up every year, the ones who use oil for
heating. But they won’t get any help from the third world or the UN, but
they certainly will pay out to make sure they have cook stoves across the
world. I’ll read what they are doing now, as they sell off your
countries. I'll be back with more after this break.

Hi
folks. We're back, and we're Cutting Through The Matrix, talking about
the farce of the world as the big agenda steamrolls ahead and they keep
repeating the same terms to embed them in your brain, until you’ll think that
carbon footprints and all that is really real. You’ve no idea how much
money they paid marketers to come up with the ideas of these particular little
terms, to try to make something into a physical picture that gets
embedded in your brain. And it’s all bogus, utterly bogus, but it’s to
bring you into a new form of slavery, called austerity, where you will have no
more spending money to purchase things that you want, or extras. You will
spend it all on fees and carbon taxes, like good little slaves should.

This
article is about how far they are going now with the assets of countries and cities.
Remember, your tax money, your property tax monies for instance, were all put
in there with the usual intention of saying, well
we’ll give you certain services and all that kind of stuff. Folk
will say, okay, okay; they are
kind of unsure but they go for it. Of course the whole idea is to create
big infrastructure, big roads, power stations, that kind of stuff, your water
supply systems. All of those things are paid for by the taxpayers’ money
and they keep it kind of nationalized to an extent; it’s still owned
technically by the taxpayers. They of course, the idea is, once they have
perfected the system they sell it off privately for a few pennies to their
bosses, to their boys, you know, the big boys. That’s the standard thing
they have done all over the world. Well, now they’ve got the new world
order in. Now that they’ve got countries amalgamated totally under a
super government, so far away from them it should be in Timbuktu because it
will make no difference how far away it is. Once you are out of sight of
reach, that is getting to a politician… if you want a politician to complain
about what’s happening you have to go over to Europe cap-in-hand and hope,
hope… I mean really hope you’ll get to see one, because you probably
won’t. So people in Britain…

Birmingham could put city assets up for sale

Coalition
spending cuts may lead city council to make venues, including the NEC and NIA,
available to sovereign wealth funds

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 September 2010

Birmingham council
leaders, who are hoping to plug a budget hole (A: A budget hole? It’s
a bottomless pit.) by selling some of the billions of pounds of
property assets owned by Britain's second city, are in talks with Middle East
sovereign funds.

The National
Exhibition Centre (NEC) – Britain's biggest exhibition venue – prime real
estate and a stake in Birmingham airport could all be up for grabs, councillors
said, as they look to fund large capital projects at a time when the national
government is demanding deep spending cuts. (A: You see how it
all works together, it’s beautiful.)

Mike Whitby, leader
of Birmingham city council, which represents over a million people and
describes itself as Europe's biggest local authority, said he had been
approached by sovereign wealth funds and was talking with the Abu Dhabi
government as he tried to forge closer ties with the Middle East. (A:
I love this ‘forging closer ties’ [Alan laughing.] with the Middle East,
until you are joined at the hip. That’s what they said about Europe, as they
were joining Europe country by country over years. No, they weren’t
joining it; they were just forming closer ties. …we’re forging closer ties. That was the term they
used.)

"We would allow
them to be in partnership with our assets, (A: Well that sounds nice,
partnership with their assets.) including the National Indoor Arena [NIA],
the Symphony Hall, the ICC [International Convention Centre] and the NEC,"
Whitby said.

The NEC Group, which
is wholly owned by the council and includes venues such as the NIA and ICC as
well as the main exhibition centre, has fixed assets worth about £750m,
according to pre-credit crisis valuations included in the council's most recent
annual report.

The NEC made an
operating profit of almost £30m last year, on revenues of £110m.

So
this is what they are doing now. They have already sold parts of England
off to other companies as well. This will continue. The idea
remember, is to demolish any MEMORY of having a country, until you’re sort of
wandering around wondering what you are and nothing to relate to, and no past
or anything else. That’s all part of it too. And it’s working very
well. Then you go to Ireland. Ireland is doing the same
thing.

Irish Government To Auction National Assets:

Criminal Stupidity Or National Sabotage?

By Gabriel Donohoe, 19th September 2010 /
sovereignindependent.com

The Irish Government
is so hard up for cash that it is considering auctioning off national assets
like state lands, buildings, state agencies, and other valuables that belong to
the Irish people. (A: It’s kind of like the money. You put it in
the bank and you think it belongs to you.) The Government says that
the money is needed to support economic growth and employment.

When the cash for
the sale of these assets is spent, what then?

The State will still
have no money and its assets will then be in private hands. The inherent wealth
of the citizens of Ireland will have passed to the super-rich, a small class of
people who already own most of the wealth of the island. The thrift, travail,
and sacrifice of previous generations (A: That paid to have all this
infrastructure put up…) will be casually tossed aside.

Well
that’s the history that I’ve seen even in Scotland too. That’s what they
have been doing for years. That’s the big con game of using your money
and pretending it’s still yours, to make your facilities to serve you.
It’s all a big con game. It great because the big boys don’t have to put
any money in, for research and development or all that kind of stuff, as the
stuff is getting set up, like pipelines and gas supplies and so on.
Wonderful isn’t it?

And
when was this all planned, all of this ability for foreigners to come in and
buy up your assets? It was in the 1990s. They had the setting in
France for it. It was highly hush-hush. The CBC Canada did a little
documentary on it. No outsiders were allowed to get inside and that’s
when they set up the system where any foreign country can come in and basically
buy up anything they wanted from any other country. If you tried to stop
them, by any bylaw or whatever, they could fine the government, which is you
lot, and you pay millions of dollars in fines. That has already happened too,
by the way. It’s amazing. We are nothing but slaves. Nothing,
nothing but slaves. Quite something. And folk don’t know it.
Still think they are free. Still go and vote. [Alan
laughing.]

The
Dutch too, this is quite interesting. There is an article about
Holland.

Dutch Cabinet (A: That’s their
parliamentary system.)

cuts spending in 2011; more to come

Dutch
Cabinet cuts back on government workers and health care in 2011;

(A: This is
like something out of a Hollywood movie. You’ve got to understand, this
is the 21st century. It says, the Netherlands’ QUEEN…)

AMSTERDAM (AP) --
The Netherlands' queen and the outgoing prime minister presented an austere
annual budget on Tuesday that cuts spending on health care, immigrants, and
government workers -- a foretaste of more far-reaching cuts likely to come
under the conservative Cabinet now being formed.

At the start of an
afternoon full of ceremonies. (A: They love ceremonies, the big ones,
don’t they?) rituals (A: Lots of rituals… Masonic rituals that go
way, way back, and long before you heard of Pike and these characters.) and
conspicuous hats, (A: You know, because they are very wealthy and they
have to show off their hats and stuff.) Queen Beatrix rode through the
streets of The Hague in her gold-trimmed horse-drawn carriage, waving to
thousands of fans who lined the route leading to the 13th-century Hall of
Knights. (A: That’s where they held it, in the Hall of
Knights. Very important place, Holland, especial Orange, the area Orange…
very, very important place. That was a hub really of the takeover into
the new system; the demolition as well of Catholicism as they brought in a new
system and things really took off from there.)

In her speech to
both houses of Parliament, she outlined the government's plans for the year
ahead -- despite the lack of a new Cabinet 104 days after national elections.

"A far-reaching
package of cuts is necessary now to improve the position of our country in the
long term," she said, reading a text written by outgoing Prime
Minister Jan Peter Balkenende.

So
even what she was reading was written for her by the previous Prime Minister,
who was outgoing. So they are going to start slashing back there, for
austerity you understand, but they still also have to pay for nice cookers
across the world and stuff like that in third world countries to make them
what? To make them slaves to a system that we are already in slavery
to. See, over in those countries they know how to cook in 100 ways you’d
never imagine. They don’t need cook stoves, a lot of them. They
don’t need to have canned gas, propane gas, or anything like that pumped into
them. Once they are under the same system, that’s it. One generation
passes and they don’t know how to survive anymore. Seriously.
Seriously. And this is known at the top too. We are here to help you... We are here to
help you, they say. Quite something. And folk never catch
on.

They
are really, really pushing now into… well, they are not pushing. Put it
this way, they are disclosing more to the public about DNA testing.
However, whatever they disclose to you is ancient. And it’s been ancient
probably for about 50 years by the time they tell us about anything. Here
is an article…

We can build whatever animal you want to eat, say
scientists

AP / September 21, 2010 / news.com.au

TINKER with the
genetics of salmon and maybe you create a revolutionary new food source that
could help the environment and feed the hungry. (A: They tie the
environment into everything. Don’t they? …and feed the
hungry. You understand, it’s the constant… This is intentional.
They are taught to put these wee things in here when they write, in ALL these
articles.)

Or maybe you're
creating what some say is an untested "frankenfish" that could cause
unknown allergic reactions and the eventual decimation of the wild salmon
population. (A: Never mind the decimation of those with
allergies to it, that would die with it. Never mind the bioengineering
that goes on IN the human body once you’ve eaten the stuff.)

The US Food and Drug
Administration hears both arguments this week when it begins a two-day meeting
on whether to approve the marketing of the genetically engineered fish, which
would be the first such animal approved for human consumption. (A:
They are already doing it in other countries.)

The agency has
already said the salmon, which grows twice as fast as conventional salmon, is
as safe to eat as the traditional variety.

Approval of the
salmon would open the door for a variety of other genetically engineered
animals, including an environmentally friendly pig (A: Well, you
wouldn’t want to kill that would you?) that is being developed in Canada or
cattle that are resistant to mad cow disease. (A: That’s because
they are away from cities and stuff like that.)

"For future
applications out there the sky's the limit," David Edwards of the
Biotechnology Industry Association said.

"If you can
imagine it, scientists can try to do it."

AquaBounty (A:
This company that’s making this thing; it sounds fishy to me.) submitted
its first application for FDA approval in 1995, but the agency decided not
until two years ago to consider applications for genetically engineered animals
- a move seen as a breakthrough by the biotechnology industry. (A:
Now, Holland is way ahead in this stuff anyway. Holland is doing the same
thing but they are breeding, they are growing tissue in tanks that they hope to
sell to the public. They say it’s awful and kind of mushy at the moment;
it doesn’t have the texture that real, say, beef would have.)

Genetic engineering
is already widely used for crops, (A: It’s amazing too, Monsanto, the
main Monsanto station in the US won’t eat their own stuff, from their own
cafeteria. They brought it into the cafeteria and told them that they’d
eat organic stuff, only. They won’t eat the stuff they make. What
does that tell you?) but the US government until now has not
considered allowing the consumption of modified animals.

Although the
potential benefits - and profits - are huge, many individuals have qualms about
manipulating the genetic code of other living creatures. (A:
Never mind the fact that once these things get loose, and they do get loose by
the way. We’ve found that in Canada. They get into the normal stream of
things, of the normal fish, and we haven’t seen the full outcome of that
yet. We don’t know what it’s going to be yet, with these monsters out
there.)

Genetically
engineered - or GE - animals are not clones, which the FDA has already said are
safe to eat.

Clones are copies of
an animal. With GE animals, their DNA has been altered to produce a desirable
characteristic.

In the case of the
salmon, AquaBounty has added a growth hormone from a Chinook salmon that allows
the fish to produce their growth hormone all year long. (A: It’s
kind of like what they did with the cattle with the lactating hormone.)

The engineers were
able to keep the hormone active by using another gene from an eel-like fish
called an ocean pout that acts like an on switch for the hormone, according to
the company. (A: I wonder what else it does?)

Conventional salmon
only produce the growth hormone some of the time. (A: Which
would be normal.)

In documents
released ahead of the hearing, the FDA said there were no biologically relevant
differences between the engineered salmon and conventional salmon, and there is
a reasonable certainty of no harm from its consumption. (A:
Really? Do you understand how long it would take to observe humans down
the road to see what it had done to them?)

Critics have two
main concerns: The safety of the food to humans and the salmon's effect on the
environment.

Because the altered
fish has never been eaten before, they say, it could include dangerous
allergens, especially because seafood is highly allergenic. (A:
It’s also the fact they use an e-coli bacterium, a specially created type of
e-coli that’s been altered itself. They attach the new DNA onto this and
they literally infuse it into the
fish, into the tissue of the fish, and the e-coli carries it deeper. And
guess what happens? The e-coli stays there. Then you eat it. Well,
if it’s meant to alter the fish, what’s it doing to you if this darn thing is
live inside you? Hmm? But that doesn’t matter does it? We’re
all dying of cancers now, eh, because of all the high lifestyle we live and all
that kind of stuff. And all of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready that we’re
absorbing with all the crap they feed us for grain, etc. So we don’t have
to worry about that too much.)

They
are really going ahead at it. Then you go into this article here, where
DNA is all the rage now you see. Everything is about predictability,
predicting how people are, predicting how you will behave. The Pentagon
is at it; they have a clone of you basically in their little cyber world where
they update it with your new latest data, feed it problems to see how YOU would
behave in reality, and they observe it. Well, they are doing the same
thing with DNA. If they could only program your DNA they could find out
if they could STOP people like this getting born, like psychopaths you
see. But it’s only for violent psychopaths. I wouldn’t mind so much
if they came out with a test for the psychopaths who wear the big business
suits and are not violent like that; they get other folk, they get armies to go
off and do THEIR battles for them when they want to steal land and stuff like
that, the REAL guys. So here you go…

Finnish researcher wants DNA test on convicted
psychopaths

9-21-10 / uk.news.yahoo.com

A simple genetic
test can help predict whether psychopaths convicted of violent crimes are prone
to be repeat offenders, a Finnish researcher said Tuesday.

"It has long
been known that there is a biological, a genetic element to psychotic
tendencies," said Helsinki University researcher Matti Virkkunen, who
co-authored a study published in Psychiatric Research. (A: They
won’t be happy until literally they can try and predict all of us and say, yep, this one should get born, that one
shouldn’t get born. This is what it’s coming down to.)

The research, which
was a joint Finnish-American project, showed that convicts who scored high on
both a traditional behavioural disorder test and had a certain gene variance
were far more likely to commit additional violent crimes than those who scored
high on the test but did not have the same gene variance.

The study followed
167 convicts for seven years after they were released from prison. All of the
subjects had been convicted of aggravated violent crimes, were alcoholic, and
had scored high enough on the assessment test to rate them as psychopathic.

They were also
genetically tested to show a particular variance of a gene called monoamine oxidase
A (MAOA). (A: It’s quite interesting, monoamine oxidase, because
most of the real big antidepressants INHIBITED the monoamine oxidase, which
kind of makes you feel kind of happy I guess. Who knows… or vice
versa. I'll be back with more after these messages …as we all get
tampered with, with SCIENCE.)

Hi
folks. I'm back and we're Cutting Through The Matrix. We’re meant
to go through all of this craziness at this time now. That’s why this is
all coming forward at this time. What they are doing now are things
really that they have been working on for maybe the last 50 years, or even
before that. They always knew where they were going. You’ve got to
read Brave New World and books like that, written in the 1930s.
You couldn’t dream that stuff up because these guys were already IN on think
tanks, these authors. They knew where they were going with genetic
modification and creating new types of people, and better people, and
taking out genes, and making them all placid and so on, right down to eugenics,
having a higher class of better alpha types, even alpha pluses and then
you have your betas and your thetas and so on. And the ones at the bottom
are kept pretty stupid to do the menial tasks. They are not too bright so
they don’t mind, and that kind of stuff. That was all in Brave New
World. Pretty well everything else I’ve read has been in old novels
as well.

Now
it’s in the mainstream as fact. Not because they’ve got good
imaginations; it’s because these authors are picked to put this stuff
out. Here is an article just to make you more confused, you see. I
can remember a time if you were asked these questions, you would have left an
office in an awful mess, including the person who asked you them. But if
you go for a job now it says…

What do you think made you become a heterosexual? Just
one of the bizarre questions council chiefs are asking staff on 'diversity'
course

By Chris Hastings / 19th September 2010 /
dailymail.co.uk

(A: Oh,
DIVERSITY, you know.)

Town Hall bosses are
asking staff to take part in a 'heterosexuality quiz' so they can gain a
greater understanding of what it is like to be gay. (A: I can
remember when they started that with putting blindfolds on you and making you
stumble around a classroom to let you know what it was like to be blind.
It’s actually a technique they are using here. There is actually a
psychological technique that they use on you when they are doing all this
stuff.)

The quiz, devised by
managers at Buckinghamshire County Council, is part of an equality and
diversity course called 'Respecting Sexuality'.

Questions, which are
described as a 'twist' on those routinely asked of homosexuals, include 'What
do you think caused your heterosexuality?', 'Is it possible your
heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?', (A:
Ho-ho-ho, it’s amazing eh?) and 'If you've never slept with a person of the
same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?' (A: By the
way, this is the same stuff they are being taught in school for children and
when the children don’t really participate in the discussions they are sent to
the little counselors, all the little guidance counselors, that pretend that
they are your parents, and that’s what they say to them. How do you know unless you have tried it?
You could be inhibited. And here they are telling them, ‘if you’ve never slept with a person of the
same sex, HOW would you know you wouldn’t prefer it.’)

The quiz, devised by
managers at Buckinghamshire County Council, is part of an equality and
diversity course called 'Respecting Sexuality'

The course, which
encourages staff to 'have a better understanding' of the challenges faced by
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender colleagues, includes a film which
follows the experience of four fictitious employees. (A: So they
even have to get fictitious ones.)

The film is said to
'build in intensity' and can provoke a variety of reactions. Trainers' notes
state: 'Initial reactions to the stories vary widely, with heterosexual
(straight) people often dismissing the stories as exaggerated or rare and
homosexual (gay people) immediately recognising the issues and emotions
explored here as honest and relevant.'

Why
would you want to bring your problems, your personal problems into the workplace?
And you realize this is about getting a job? Getting a job... What
do you have to do, start dressing and pretending you’re something that you’re
not? Hmm? Disgusting! But that’s what the world’s come down
to, isn’t it? As we’re all tampered with and remade, remodeled, Brave New
World here we are. Only because you let it… And that’s the bottom
line isn’t it?

From Hamish and myself
from Ontario, Canada, it’s good night and may your God or your Gods GO with
you.